SIGN UP

Why Will It Take So Long To Try These Savages?

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 14:21 Tue 02nd Mar 2021 | News
44 Answers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-56250697
December? 4FS, surely it's an open and shut case??

Answers

1 to 20 of 44rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because they entered not guilty pleas and asked for their case to be tried by a jury. After the defendants elected a crown court trial, the judge sent the case for a hearing at Bristol Crown Court on February 8.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/edward-colston-statue-not-guilty-pleas-case-bristol-b901008.html
Question Author
....fine but the evidence was on prime time TV, should take 5 mins to bang these lowlives up. Could at least have remanded them in custody.
Considering we keep hearing that the courts have a massive back log of cases to conduct, and a lot lot more savage than this, I'm amazed this seems to have a priority, above the back log.
I would have thought it's unusual to be remanded for vandalism (or criminal damage)
Most people have to be bailed unless there is evidence they will abscond I think
Remand in custody is only used for very serious offences. Do you really think we should pay their bed & board for 9 months?

With a not guilty plea there are a number of stages to go through before the actual trial. CPS has to prepare its case, disclosure of evidence by both sides, pre-trial review etc.
It must be an easy case to prove, so a well needed quick earner for the solicitors.
One thing I don’t understand is why these defendants have been allowed to elect trial by jury. Criminal damage where the value is under £5,000 is triable only summarily – i.e. only in the Magistrates’ Court. The value of the statue is said to be £3,750. However, no matter.

As far as bail goes, the Bail Act provides for a right to bail unless the court is satisfied that the defendant may:

Abscond (i.e. not turn up as required).
Interfere with the course of justice (particularly witnesses).
Commit further offences.

To be satisfied of one of the above the court must see evidence (e.g. previous examples of absconding or committing offences whilst on bail).

With one or two exception for very serious offences (mainly murder and manslaughter) the severity of the alleged offence is not an issue when deciding whether bail is appropriate. The court might find that the nature and seriousness of the offence means a lengthy custodial sentence might be imposed in the event of a conviction and this would lead to a greater likelihood of absconding, but that would be rare.

There is no such thing as an "open and shut case" Tora. M'Learned Friends will have told their clients that they are entitled to put the prosecution to proof. Since a custodial sentence is extremely unlikely and since the defendants are probably (on paper anyway) potless, they have little to lose.

-- answer removed --
^ sorry.
I predict they will get off, as he was a controversial figure and its the "right on" thing to do .
I hope am wrong though.
seriously, there are better things to get angry about than £3500 of criminal damage split between 4 people
I'd hardly call them savages for this act alone.
//seriously, there are better things to get angry about than £3500 of criminal damage split between 4 people//

I think it's a little more than that, bednobs. The accusation only addresses the damage. There is a wider principle to consider. In this country people do not rip down statues of people of whom they disapprove. Like it or not, this country does have a past which involves slavery and colonialism. It was not alone. But people should not set themselves up as arbiters of what we can remember and how we can remember it.
but is that addressed by this court case? It sseems to me the case is about criminal damage?
Yes it is, bednobs, and I don't think the fact that the damage was done to public property and apparently for no legitimate reason will aggravate the matter to influence sentencing. I was just suggesting why people may be a little more concerned about it than they would be if it was simple "mindless" vandalism.
i suppose so but wanting to remand someone for a year because they cause criminal damage, seems a bit spleen venty :)
Bednobs remand normally refers to being held in custody. They will be on bail prior to appearance in court, they elected to go to Crown Court.
I reckon our wonderful lord mayor marvellous Marvin will have a quiet word somewhere and they will all get off scot free.
// Because they entered not guilty pleas and asked for their case to be tried by a jury.//

because TTT thinking it is an open and shut case has mothing to do with the speed it gets to court
( but I agree it is far too long)

x years ago, GBH got to court within 60d
god knows when 1890 probably
Poor old TTT. Life must be so difficult for him, living in a world where nearly everything goes against all he holds most dearest.

1 to 20 of 44rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Why Will It Take So Long To Try These Savages?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.